Weiner on NIED and Pets

Merle Hope Weiner has posted to SSRN Reconsidering Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress for Loss or Injury to a Pet. The abstract provides:

This Article contends that a pet owner should be able to recover for emotional distress when the pet owner had a special relationship with the defendant, such as a veterinarian, and the defendant’s gross negligence injured or killed the owner’s pet.  The Article argues that the American Law Institute (ALI) unnecessarily and improperly foreclosed claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against veterinarians in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. Among other things, the Article explores the importance of the special relationship theory (compared to the bystander theory) for achieving tort law’s objective in the pet context, the contemporary expectations of clients and veterinarians about their relationship, and the reasons why the ALI may have taken its ill-advised position. Finally, the Article suggests that future applications of the NIED claim against veterinarians should follow the Restatement Third’s formulation but limit recovery to cases involving gross negligence.  This modification eliminates any residual concern about the potential impact of liability on the availability of veterinarian services while furthering tort law’s objectives in the most egregious cases.